>These components can either be used together in the Qt Designer application, or integrated into other systems. As a result, certain features such as the project editor and code editor have been removed from the version that is included in this release. This allows the components to be independent of each other.<

Why doesn't their own integrated version provide the functionality it did before? They can still componentize the rest, but by their own admission they are now missing a project editor and code editor. Anyway, I haven't used it.

Dang. I am finally getting used to using Designer to edit my code and was just starting to become productive with it :o( There were two approaches used by Designer to code applications:
1. Subclassing
2. The ui.h approach (which I just recently mastered!)

It seems to me that Trolltech is eliminating #2. Is that correct?

It was a bit of a pain to learn, and makes some things tricky. I won't miss the code editor on Linux (where I use Kate), but I will miss it for Windows development (I don't use MS-Studio). Also, the project editor is quite nice, I will miss it too...

Well, if I am interpreting this Arthur stuff correctly, eg being able to render everything to your choice of X11, PostScript, and notably OpenGL, as well as various propertiary Windows/Mac things, I'd say yes for the latter, probably the former also.

Qt (3) already supports this for font aliasing. They do there rendering stuff by using the Xrender extension. If you have a card (and driver) that supports this (only nVidia at the moment) you get your hardware acceleration.

Did some tests with it, and it is impressive. I guess that Trolltech is using the Xrender extension for anti-aliasing of lines. So that should be hardware rendered also. Same goes for transparancy.

Main problem at the moment lies with the X server. The Xrender extension has some problems, and these needs to be fixed first.

Actually, the open source Radeon drivers have a RenderAccel option which will accelerate XRENDER for doing things like drawing fonts (but they don't accelerate large blends or composites [especially not from incompatible pixmap formats]).

I see the point of view that, at least personally, GTK is overly low level and is best used to build upon through bindings while QT is more of a finished product in this regard. Are there any other reason, however?

GTK is only graphics, but glib provides many of the same things that QT does outside of graphics. The GTK authors just decided to move the non GUI bits outside of the GTK library itself so that authors of non graphical programs can benefit without depending on X libraries. Strangely enough Trolltech has decided to do much the same thing in QT4, though they are leaving it all in one QT "package" while splitting into multiple libraries.

first, you shouldn't use proprietary software, so you shouldn't use windows.

second, very bad GTK2+ supports windows. Trolltech promotes the use of free software, making QT available for Linux and other free environments for free (GPL, so even more free than the Lesser GPL, as GTK2+ is), and not for windows.

its good to let these people, who where willing to fund Bill gates with another car, pay to make QT (also for linux) a better product. really good. if they want to use windows and proprietary software, fine, but let them pay for it. they seem to be more than willing to pay, considered they pay for windows itself, while its such crap.

first, you shouldn't use proprietary software, so you shouldn't use windows.
Perhaps its beyond my control. Perhaps i'm merely running Windows to port my QT application over to Windows. Perhaps i'm not a free software zealot.

Trolltech promotes the use of free software, making QT available for Linux and other free environments for free (GPL, so even more free than the Lesser GPL, as GTK2+ is), and not for windows.
Trolltech doesn't promote compatibility with that, nor do they promote the use of free software to Windows users with their non-free Windows port. Not against that? Then you're not a true free software zealot.

second, very bad GTK2+ supports windows.
Its LGPL. Anyone can port it to Windows if they wish to. That's exactly what happens. Against that? Then you're not a true free software zealot.

you're moaning about having to pay for QT, while GTK is free - but you (or your boss) are willing to pay for windows, why not for QT? And if you dont want to pay, you are free to use free software. I don't pretend being a true free software zealot, but you are a hypocrite.

So you are willing to pay microsoft in order to port your Qt-application to Windows, but you won't pay TrollTech for their work on the Windows-version of Qt to make that port possible?
Now, that's a hypocrit

" Perhaps i'm not a free software zealot."

Then you won't have any problem with buying a Qt-license, and asking your Windows-audience to pay for the Windows-version of your software..

Because i'm merely porting an application for users? Because my boss decides what i have to do?

"Then you won't have any problem with buying a Qt-license, and asking your Windows-audience to pay for the Windows-version of your software.."

I have. I decided to program in GTK2 for cross-platform compatibility. If i were developing my program using QT, Windows users would have to pay for the software and the source wouldn't be fully open. Hence my software wouldn't be free then, because of QT. Not because its cross-platform...

But you people are a bunch of dildos who don't care for cross-platform compliance. You only care for Linsux. Hitler also hated the Jews, and only cared for the Germans >:(

> If i were developing my program using QT, Windows
> users would have to pay for the software and the
> source wouldn't be fully open.

Both of your statements are false:
1. Windows users don't *have* to pay for your Qt software if you don't want to charge them. You can distribute a Windows binary application for free. The programmers are the ones that needs to pay for Qt, in order to get the necessary includes and etc to compile their software. Each programmer needs a license. Users don't need to pay anything at all.

2. I believe you can open source your Qt software, as long as it is not a viral license (ie. GPL)!! But if someone wants to work on it, he/she will need a Qt license. So, yes, it wouldn't make much sense to have an open source project like that, but I believe it would be possible.

I am not that familiar with Trolltech's licenses, but I believe these two are valid points. Anyone more familiar, please say so.

I think both your points are right, except that you don't get what i thought on when i read point 1! So my reponse to that.

1) If i compile static, then i think you're right. But if i compile dynamic the user still needs the QT library. Hence i have to compile static to reduce costs.

2) If developers of free software have to pay to develop a Windows-compatible port then who's gonna pay for *their* costs?

The QT proponents answer to point #2: "but its Windows, we dont want to encourage software to that" or "you are already paying for Windows, why not pay for QT as well" but i wouldn't pay for it for my own benefit, it would be for my users. Besides, marketing on Windows is a nice side effect. Firefox works fine on Windows and its nice marketing for FOSS. Moreover, who thinks about QT applications on other proprietary systems? Last time i checked, proprietary Unices were significantly more expensive than Windows yet QT runs free on these. And finally, who thinks about MY APPLICATION?

Re your point 1. It always surprises me about how misinformed people are about the Qt license, bitch and moan about their ignorance everywhere, no matter how wrong they are. I guess instead of informing yourselves of the facts you would rather "think this" and "think that" or worse let others do the "thinking" for you by buying into their lies and propaganda. Sigh.

That is something you control.
You decide wether you want to port something to windows or not. You can also port Qt to Windows if you want to have a GPL-version of the toolkit ..

"Because my boss decides what i have to do?"

If you boss wants you to port or develop something for Windows, he is also paying you to do so :)
Also he is the one that should buy the Qt-license (and the Windows-license, etc..), not you.

"I have. I decided to program in GTK2 for cross-platform compatibility."
That is nice.
As developer you are free to decide wich toolkits fits your needs, and if GTK does so, then use that :o)
But don't start bashing another toolkit if it does not fit al your requirements.
Or would you switch to Qt if there was a GPL-version available for Windows?

" If i were developing my program using QT, Windows users would have to pay for the software and the source wouldn't be fully open. Hence my software wouldn't be free then, because of QT. Not because its cross-platform..."
Yeps, but I thought you were not a Free Software Zealot :o)
Also, your Linux-program would still be free, only the Windows-port would not be.

"But you people are a bunch of dildos who don't care for cross-platform compliance. You only care for Linsux."

If Linux sux, why develop for it in the first place?
Also, Qt is available as GPL for a lot of platforms, including linux, several Unices, MacOS...
Is your program already available on MacOS?

And finally, there is nothing wrong with cross-platform compliance. Qt offers you that, perhaps even more then GTK2 does.
But you are not asking for cross-platform compliance, you are asking for a free (as in gratis/freedom) product on a propietary platform.
And that is something TrollTech does not deliver..

"Or would you switch to Qt if there was a GPL-version available for Windows?"

Probably, yes. Because its technical superior to GTK :o)

"Also, Qt is available as GPL for a lot of platforms, including linux, several Unices, MacOS...
Is your program already available on MacOS?"

No, and i don't have a PPC computer to port it over either. But MacOS is also a proprietary system why is QT available for MacOS free and Windows non-free? Say i ported a QT application over to MacOS. Theoretically, not many people would run it, in relation to the number of people who'd run it on Windows. So if i aim for as much users as possible and supporting major platforms first where x86 is the easiest (because i don't have PPC or POWER or SPARC) then Windows would be #1 or #2.

"But MacOS is also a proprietary system why is QT available for MacOS free and Windows non-free?"
Well, MacOS is not 100% proprietary, afaik only the grafical interface is. So, there is a difference.
Dunno why TrollTech won't create a GPL-version for Windows, but is is probably because that is where most of their revenue comes from.

Well, dunno about the real reason for TrollTech (see above), but I also think it is not a good idea that free software can run on Windows. Why not? To get people to use free operation systems in stead of Windows, it needs killer applications. Now, if all current or future killer applications are available for Linux/BSD/name your OSS-os are available for Windows as wel, why would anyone want to switch?

"Well, MacOS is not 100% proprietary, afaik only the grafical interface is. So, there is a difference.
Dunno why TrollTech won't create a GPL-version for Windows, but is is probably because that is where most of their revenue comes from."

Probably, yes. I think i understand their revenue scheme.

I partly support their overal reasoning regarding non-GPL compliant licensing schemes. That is to say, in theory it works fine. If one developed a proprietary program they have to pay TrollTech for a QT license. The problem is that when one develops a program which is roughly as free / restrictive as the GPL, but it has a different name, then you still end up with a problem. Even though you morally do ~ the same as a GPL developer, you use a different license and you get a burden because of that. Thats not fair.

"To get people to use free operation systems in stead of Windows, it needs killer applications. Now, if all current or future killer applications are available for Linux/BSD/name your OSS-os are available for Windows as wel, why would anyone want to switch?"

Its not good for compatibility though and in the Real World, some people have to run Windows or run Windows and want a compatible-with-*NIX system. What if *NIX developers said: "Well we're not gonna implement SMB/CIFS, Windows must use NFS instead" or something similar.

PS: My Windows is not 100% proprietary and the parts of MacOSX which are proprietary are the most exciting. They do the very same as Windows regarding GUI, but they don't have this restricting licensing scheme!

"The problem is that when one develops a program which is roughly as free / restrictive as the GPL, but it has a different name, then you still end up with a problem."

You don't if its GPL compatible - whatever the name is.

"Its not good for compatibility though and in the Real World, some people have to run Windows or run Windows and want a compatible-with-*NIX system. What if *NIX developers said: "Well we're not gonna implement SMB/CIFS, Windows must use NFS instead" or something similar."

The NFS and the SMB networking stacks are implementations of network protocols that are common to different platforms. Desktop software is just not like that, so the comparison is non-existant.

"PS: My Windows is not 100% proprietary and the parts of MacOSX which are proprietary are the most exciting. They do the very same as Windows regarding GUI, but they don't have this restricting licensing scheme!"

Only you know what you mean by that crap, but I think you'll find that Microsoft and even Apple have some pretty restrictive licenses. You also have to pay for their software stacks, which you don't have to do (or pay very little) if you're using Linux and KDE. You simply pay for a development license if you need it, which for real-world programmers makes perfect sense.

And why is it technically superior, oh anonymous arsehole? Because Trolltech has a business model to fund its continued development and still respect free software.

Look, Qt will never be LGPLd so piss poor programmers and incredibly stupid people like yourself can develop with piss poor development tools for absolutely nothing - OK? The reason why Qt is so good is because it isn't LGPLd, and that doesn't matter to good programmers, Windows programmers or anyone other than you that it isn't - OK?

And therein is the piss poor logic you have floating around in your head. You'll pay for Windows, Office and other Windows software you'll need but you don't want to pay for good development tools to develop good software?!

So i tell what? You're making that up. Nowhere did i state that hence i don't see the need to back that up. It would be an interesting hypothesis for me, although you haven't defined what 'success' exactly means to you.

Well, you apparently "questioned" (more like ridiculed) the argument that Qt not being LGPL'ed made it as good as it is today. Either you are taking part in the whole GPL vs. LGPL discussion just for the sake of it, or you tell us why you consider the above statement a "zealot's argument lacking better ones". I was only asking questions in case you noticed.

Either you are taking part in the whole GPL vs. LGPL discussion just for the sake of it, or you tell us why you consider the above statement a "zealot's argument lacking better ones"

The person arguing this is the same person as the one who didn't even know the LGPL is considered Free software by the FSF. Neither did you, for the record.

His post contains several flat statements which are simply not argumented. Besides the several ad hominems, for which i don't care that much, he stated:

And why is it technically superior, oh anonymous arsehole? Because Trolltech has a business model to fund its continued development and still respect free software.

That's not invalid reasoning. He makes 2 statements. The first one we agree on, the second one is a questionable statement but the connection between the 2 is not made. Its like saying: "Oh my, the world is round" and "Einstein was a smart mathematician" with a because between those 2. It makes no sense at all because the alleged corelation is not argumented.

Look, Qt will never be LGPLd so piss poor programmers and incredibly stupid people like yourself can develop with piss poor development tools for absolutely nothing - OK? The reason why Qt is so good is because it isn't LGPLd, and that doesn't matter to good programmers, Windows programmers or anyone other than you that it isn't - OK?

In these statements lie various personal attacks, which show personal attachement to various morals.

The first statement shows arrogance which is unfounded because David cannot know what exactly happens in the future or the future for QT. He also hasn't shown he has somehow more power over that future than anyone else which would have been a way to gain authority over that statement.

The second statement is what you quote and its simply not proven or argumented. Its similar to what the Catholic church said about the Earth: that its flat and that the Earth evolves around the Sun while not proving it. Hence it were never scientific statements. The Catholic church, in that situation, pulled an authority argument. That is to say, they used their authority to make people believe something which they were not able to prove. It also seems to argue good programmers (whatever the definition of that may exactly be) don't care for licensing issues. The LGPL statement is similar to my Einstein example here above.

And therein is the piss poor logic you have floating around in your head. You'll pay for Windows, Office and other Windows software you'll need but you don't want to pay for good development tools to develop good software?!

Aside from the first statement, the second one somehow seems to know that i've paid for or will pay for Microsoft Office. No merit and untrue. Besides that it doesn't fit in my situation at all. I've more or less explained why i develop for Windows already. Thats also the very reason why i run it.

As for the last statement, there's no definitive corelation between good development tools and good software. That statement ignores qualities such as the programmer. It also ignores the possibility that there might be good development tools available for free, which i argue is true. You see, the funny thing is, thats more or less what Linux with GCC et al exactly are considered to be and which KDevelop and Eclipse are. With GNU, Linux et al you don't have to pay loads and loads of money for a license for an OS and a compiler which you had to do with UNIX systems such as OpenServer, Solaris and IRIX. Unfortunately, i also have the opinion that `Linux' is not ready for overal desktop usage -- yet.

That's where i'm coming from and that's why i made that statement. Clear? Typing and arguing all this costs a great deal of time and doesn't raise awareness of my QT political problem at all. It only deals with someone who's drawing the discussion away from my very problem. This someone is who i define as a typical GPL zealot; which people are according to my experience too stubborn to deal with. I just hope some at least someone won't fall into his pittraps of reasoning because they lack any substance.

"The person arguing this is the same person as the one who didn't even know the LGPL is considered Free software by the FSF. Neither did you, for the record."

I thought it didn't matter what the FSF thought? GPLd software is considered free software - the LGPL is for instances where you need to link GPLd and other software together somehow. It was never intended for mass LGPLing of software like Qt so you can develop piss poor software that no one will use.

"His post contains several flat statements which are simply not argumented. Besides the several ad hominems, for which i don't care that much, he stated:"

You've obviously never argued anything in your life.

"That's not invalid reasoning. He makes 2 statements. The first one we agree on, the second one is a questionable statement but the connection between the 2 is not made. Its like saying: "Oh my, the world is round" and "Einstein was a smart mathematician" with a because between those 2. It makes no sense at all because the alleged corelation is not argumented."

You can't talk bollocks, expect people to get confused and say "Oh, alright then". I've met several people who've done this to me - they don't know what they're talking about, and cannot stay on the discussion when they have nothing left to say.

"In these statements lie various personal attacks, which show personal attachement to various morals."

Personal attacks are usually brought on by the people who post this kind of stupidity. Look at the first post and all the way down this thread as to who brought what on whom. This is also a strategy employed by many people - when you have nothing left to say claim you've been personally victimised, even though you're anonymous.

"The first statement shows arrogance which is unfounded because David cannot know what exactly happens in the future or the future for QT. He also hasn't shown he has somehow more power over that future than anyone else which would have been a way to gain authority over that statement."

Another classic strategy - claim that no one actually knows anything. You look into the future by reasoning your arguments. I also never claimed I knew anything about the future of Qt. I explained why Qt was technically superior by the way it is funded, and the way it continues to be funded. Nothing is ever 'free', I'm afraid.

"The second statement is what you quote and its simply not proven or argumented. Its similar to what the Catholic church said about the Earth: that its flat and that the Earth evolves around the Sun while not proving it. Hence it were never scientific statements. The Catholic church, in that situation, pulled an authority argument. That is to say, they used their authority to make people believe something which they were not able to prove. It also seems to argue good programmers (whatever the definition of that may exactly be) don't care for licensing issues. The LGPL statement is similar to my Einstein example here above."

Blah, blah, blah. You should do this for charity - you're wasting your talents.

"Aside from the first statement, the second one somehow seems to know that i've paid for or will pay for Microsoft Office. No merit and untrue."

If you use Windows then if you want to stay legal you need to pay for Windows and Office. After that, because everything in Windows development is geared to Microsoft software, Office inevitably becomes part of the equation if you actually develop for a living which you almost certainly don't.

If you've warezed all of your software then please don't have the cheek to ask around here that Qt be given away for nothing.

"As for the last statement, there's no definitive corelation between good development tools and good software."

Totally wrong, both practically and logically. If the house that you're building was built with poor materials and tools, it isn't going to stand up very well, is it?

"It also ignores the possibility that there might be good development tools available for free, which i argue is true. You see, the funny thing is, thats more or less what Linux with GCC et al exactly are considered to be and which KDevelop and Eclipse are."

There are, but when you get to the desktop end development tools become a whole lot more complex, which lends itself better to commercial development tools. You may also want to ask yourself what commercial companies fund the development of 'free' software like GCC and others. Mono certainly isn't free for Novell to develop, and yet they realy need more people to push it forwards. Nothing is ever 'free' I'm afraid, but it is something many people on these forums have deluded themselves inot thinking.

"Typing and arguing all this costs a great deal of time and doesn't raise awareness of my QT political problem at all."

Blah, blah, blah, look at me I've been attacked. I think you'll find your comments starting this all further down this thread.

Qt isn't your software, so if you have a problem with it then that's just tough basically.

"It only deals with someone who's drawing the discussion away from my very problem."

No, I've only been dealing with what's actaully relevant - talking about Qts license, why it is the way that it is, and why it is actually technically superior. The bollocks above is not relevant to any of this, but then again, that's what you want. Roughly translated it means "I'll talk a lot of crap, and hope that I can tie so many knots that he thinks I know what I'm talking about."

"This someone is who i define as a typical GPL zealot; which people are according to my experience too stubborn to deal with."

Look out, everyone's a zealot now!

Regardless of whether I'm a GPL zealot or not, the GPL actually works as a license. It ensures free software development, and also allows companies to fund their software further.

"I just hope some at least someone won't fall into his pittraps of reasoning because they lack any substance."

I'm very glad that you think that, because with nothing left to say that statement shows you know I'm right.

I'm not gonna waste any more time to a dwarf like you, you can have the last word. Except for the following statement:

"I thought it didn't matter what the FSF thought?"

It does not matter what Stallman and his friends think. The only thing from the FSF which does matter these days, are the legal matters. Wether LGPL is free software, with what it is compatible are all legal matters. Hence important, although they're humans who can made mistakes.

"I'm not gonna waste any more time to a dwarf like you, you can have the last word. Except for the following statement:"

Blah, blah. You shouldn't have started this pointless thread, should you?

"It does not matter what Stallman and his friends think. The only thing from the FSF which does matter these days, are the legal matters. Wether LGPL is free software, with what it is compatible are all legal matters. Hence important, although they're humans who can made mistakes."

Wow, thanks for that snippet and thanks for pointing out the bleedin' obvious. It has no relevance to the past 'discussion' though.

Wow, thanks for that snippet and thanks for pointing out the bleedin' obvious. It has no relevance to the past 'discussion' though.

Whoever looks back in this discussion notes that is you who made incorrect statement on the LGPL and who somehow forces another to accept the FSFs standpoint on LGPL uses while that is in no way 1) dictated 2) practice. Your colors (FSF, Free Software zealot) are seeing the light right now.

"Whoever looks back in this discussion notes that is you who made incorrect statement on the LGPL and who somehow forces another to accept the FSFs standpoint on LGPL uses while that is in no way 1) dictated 2) practice."

The FSF makes the license, therefore they are entitled to recommend what is 'standard practice' - not you. I have in no way forced anyone - feel free to get lost and do what you like.

For free software's protection they effectively recommend that you keep development within the cycle of the GPL (used to very, very good effect with Linux) and use the LGPL on a case-by-case basis where you need to link and use other software. That is a pretty logical argument, as once you start arguing the case for the LGPL you are worrying more about what license your software is under, and what it will link against, rather than the actual development of the software itself.

That's the reasoning behind why I think the FSF has this right in this case, and why the rest of your comments are just bollocks in effectively demanding that Qt be LGPLd. Again, it's not your software.

Wish all you like. As I've pointed out many times, the GPL is a license that works, spectacularly well in the case of Linux and has allowed Qt to be open sourced whilst giving the community the benefit of a fully commercially supporting programing tool.

No amount of zealot mud-slinging will change that I'm afraid, and I find that amusing, since I have never been an FSF zealot in any way. The FSF have the stance on the GPL and the LGPL exactly right though, and I can certainly accept it when they are right.

they don't care, unless they use windows themselves - and if so, they are paying microsoft. then why not pay trolltech?

and that goes for the users - they are willing to pay microsoft, explain me whats wrong with paying for trollteck's product...

if you want to develop a free software product, develop it for a free software platform. non-free software platform-users seem to be willing (stupid enough?) to pay, well, I don't care if they pay. If they don't want to pay, they are FREE to use free software. If they are stupid enough to continue paying Microsoft, well, its oke - but don't complain.

"and that goes for the users - they are willing to pay microsoft, explain me whats wrong with paying for trollteck's product..."

Well, it is simple, users don't have to pay TrollTech, but developers do.
And they rather spent more time using a less featured product, or charge their boss more ours for porting the software to Windows then they are willing to pay Trolltech for a license.

You also conveniently paint over the fact that free software developers who want to run their software on Windows have to pay Microsoft - yes, Microsoft. If I want to develop for Windows I expect to pay.

I believe what David meant is that GPL is more friendly of free software. The reason for this is that everybody that modifies and/or uses/links GPL code will have to license their software under a free software license. In this sense, it is more friendly of the free software community.
And yes, LGPL (used by GTK, Python, etc) are more free in the sense that they allow you to use them for property software. But, at the same time, it hurts free software because it allows this to happen.

I don't necessarly agree with this opinion, just trying to help. Please don't flame me. ;)